If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will be required to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Leave a comment:

You got me laughing with that response! Seriouly though, when did we have to start borrowing from countries like communist china to run our government? I know that our government was self sufficient for a long time and not only lent but donated plenty to other countries, so when did things tank? I'm not looking to place blame on a particular President, but I am curious who was at the helm when we had to start holding out our hand for funds, especially from a communist country.

George Washington was the correct answer we were a country founded in debt and borrowed from the Dutch to initially fund our government.

The more specific answer, my google foo has failed me, so I can only sum up based on history.

Up until the 1920's the US was very specific in who we borrowed money from. If we needed money we bummed it off an ally willing to lend. While at times we may have had a net surplus there is never a time that we didn't owe someone money.

With the start of WWI there wasn't any countries that could fund our war build up. ie all our friends were had no cash to spare. Our government needed a way to come up with funds so we started selling bonds as a way to fund debt. Bonds unlike simply borrowing money are tools of capitalism and anyone or any country can buy them including our 'enemies' So I guess you can blame Woodrow Wilson for enabling China to be able to buy our debt.

At that point any individual Chinese person could have bought our debt. I don't think China's government was really in a position to buy bonds until the 50's and wouldn't have had much national interest in doing so until the 80's. It wouldn't be till they really picked up on capitalism in the 90's that you'd start seeing them in ownership of debt in the volume you see today.

Leave a comment:

But one of the things that we all seem to miss, is that the "top-down" approach is based on the perception that the rich's elaborate and free spending will provide sales, manufacturing, jobs, and money for the working class of this country.

You have a serious misconception. Trickle-down economics, in the context of Reaganomics, is NOT based on any socio-economic group's individual spending habits. The wealthy may be conspicuous consumers, but in aggregate their spending is insignificant compared to the spending habits of the balance of the population. Hundreds of millions of Americans buying imported products everyday dwarfs the relatively tiny number of well-off folks driving bentleys and vacationing in Monaco.

The Reagan/Stockman "Trickle-down" refers to a supply-side approach that endeavors to remove barriers to production. The theory is that barriers to business discourage both investment and new starts. No investment and/or no new starts means no job creation. Trickle-down, or a supply-side approach, says that if we remove those barriers, people will invest in business and thus create jobs.

The problem in the current globalized economy is that removing barriers to production and incentivizing industry means encouraging further investment in foreign manufacturing - both in terms of outsourcing and in terms of investing in capital facilities (factories and equipment) in those foreign markets. This is the problem with "trickle-down" today - it wasn't a problem during Reagan's years. That doesn't mean that it no longer works. It means that the trickle needs to be diverted back to the United States. There's an element of the plan that wasn't required in the past which IS required today... and is missing.

Even the demos, who love to demonize business, understand what is really happening. Mr. Obama just proposed a massive BUSINESS TAX CUT.... since his other huge expenditures had virtually no effect on the jobs problem. A business tax cut... hmmm... very republican behavior, isn't it? Or is it desperation?

Unfortunately it won't work. Within the context of the current economy, any jobs created are for the most part going to be created elsewhere.

The repubs won't fare much better. We seem to focus on what happened since late 2008, but that's wrong. The economy was in the serious doldrums all during Bush 43's tenure. People were gtting lousy raises and in general the "service economy" model was replacing good-paying industrial/manufacturing jobs with low-paying service sector jobs. Even war - which traditionally provides an immediate boost to the economy - was unable to make much impact.

It goes back even further. The current problems have taken a long time to mature.

The repubs and demos aren't much different. Neither one is your friend. Neither is saying anything that will result in jobs creation or the rebuilding of US industry. While THEY actively divert your attention to issues like gay marriage, mosques, idiotic emotional wars, etc.... you're being ROBBED of the industrial legacy that your parents and grandparents built and left for you. What are we fixing to leave to our children?

Leave a comment:

I'm not so sure Reagonomics worked in the way that it was meant. I do realize that is certainly arguable, and very much dependant on your place in the world.

But one of the things that we all seem to miss, is that the "top-down" approach is based on the perception that the rich's elaborate and free spending will provide sales, manufacturing, jobs, and money for the working class of this country.

I live in a community that used to be full of very well paid excutives and scientist (Corning). Let me tell you that other than their housing and the industry that builds them, very little of thier income was ever spent here. These people don't buy Fords and Chevies, heck man, they don't even buy Cadilacs... instead they buy BMW's, Mercedes, Avalon's and even a Farrari or two. They don't take vacations here either... they go to Europe, the Carribean, and Asia.

They don't buy clothes here either, as the corporate jet is always tripping back and forth between NYC, full of executive's wives on their weeking shopping tripss (one of the "bennys" of working for Corning at the time)

One nasty thing that the Reagon administration did, was to rob the pension plans of those working class people, by allowing American business to rewrite those pension plans, giving less to the workers and then taking the $Billions for "investment". (My and many other pensions went from a "highest five years" to an amortirized "lifetime average"... a difference of well over a $thousand a month in my retirement.)

Regarding an early question about what the "Republicans" are going to do for us when they take back the government... Do any of you really think that is going to change things in a positive way for any of you?

Like yeah, they'll make sure the taxes don't get increased for the very rich. They'll make sure that there will be no more "Corporate" burdens with either taxes or infringements because of restrictive legislation and I'm sure they will do their level best to repeal the health care benefits for the working class and the poor... In other words, they'll do everything possible to ensure us that we'll be right back into the situation that got us here in the first place.

I read somewhere, not long ago, that between H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush their budget indebtedness was more than every other administration (since George Washington) combined. We seem to have very short memories I think!

CWS

Leave a comment:

You got me laughing with that response! Seriouly though, when did we have to start borrowing from countries like communist china to run our government? I know that our government was self sufficient for a long time and not only lent but donated plenty to other countries, so when did things tank? I'm not looking to place blame on a particular President, but I am curious whowasatthehelm when we had to start holding out our hand for funds, especially from a communist country.

GW Bush

Leave a comment:

You got me laughing with that response! Seriouly though, when did we have to start borrowing from countries like communist china to run our government? I know that our government was self sufficient for a long time and not only lent but donated plenty to other countries, so when did things tank? I'm not looking to place blame on a particular President, but I am curious who was at the helm when we had to start holding out our hand for funds, especially from a communist country.

Leave a comment:

Do you remember the inflation and high interest (16% mortgages) during the Carter administration?

Unfortunately one of the areas where the Reagan team did miss the boat was deregulation of the financial industry. Shoulda known better... unfortunately those folks never police themselves. So on that one, I agree with you. Especially with the Federal Reserve, an organization of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers - in control.

But trickle-down worked. It still works. The problem is that the landscape has changed. Globalization and the huge rise of the Chinese as an industrial dynamo, the wealth is trickling overseas to China.

No one in DC has shown the slightest interest in changing the rules of the game to divert that trickle back to where it will help us. Until they do, this economy will continue to die on the vine.

The Demos are like deer in the headlights, trying to stimulate the economy with methods that don't work and have never worked. With a trillion bucks (TWELVE zeros!!) you could incubate and incentivize a lot of industry. Instead they do the typical DC trick... throw money at the problem, with very little focus and even fewer clearcut objectives.

The Repubs seem to be stuck in a time warp, unable to see that while protecting industry and giving them the run of the place is going to create jobs and create wealth, it isn't going to do so in the the United States.

The citizenry wonders why they can't find a decent-paying job. This means they won't be able to buy that Chinese-made flat screen TV.

The world has gone mad. Reagan should not have deregulated.... but he did not cause the problems we face today.

Leave a comment:

I'm so excited!! At my credit union they have CD rates starting at 0.5% for 4 years! WOW! now that's exciting minimum deposit required $25,000,00!!!!
regular savings is around 0.1% with a large minimum balance required!
If you have an account that's inactive? they charge you $5.00 a month!
Their credit cards are around 21-29%
Their fee schedule went from a few items to a full page small print to boot. Do not even think of asking the teller what time it is..they will charge you $7.50

I think I'll order another case of plastic containers to sell to folks so they can bury their money in the back yard as coffee cans are now cardboard!

I just saw an ad on TV for a collectible two dollar bill for only $10.00 plus shipping....why didn't I think of that darn!

I also listen to those financial advisers on AM radio telling folks if they save X dollars today at 7% they can accumulate XXX dollars.
Anyone know where I can find anything earning of 7%?????

Oh some really good news....regular gas has dropped to $2.56-9
for a few days from 2.59-9 and is now slowly going back up.

I'm so happy the rescission is over because the credit union did hint about simply charging us fee to hold any of our money! but now they can give us 0.1 to 0.5% interest without any guilt!

I have goose bumps

Cactus Man

I have any every day savings account with ING and get 6.4% on my money in OZ pay 11.74% on my credit card my mortgage on my home at 6.74% and petrol at $1.10 per Litre.